The Lululemon controversy: what you need to know about PFAS chemicals

Since April, the Canadian brand Lululemon has been under investigation by Texas authorities to determine whether certain sportswear items contain potential chemical pollutants. While the company has denied using these substances for several years, FashionNetwork.com asked Lynn Fiorentino, Bina Joshi, and Alex Garel-Frantzen, experts from the law and lobbying firm ArentFox Schiff, to shed light on the issue of PFAS, per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances, a group of synthetic chemicals used widely in manufacturing since the 1940’s, and commonly known as “forever chemicals.”

FashionNetwork.com: For several years now, a number of brands have come under fire for using unregulated substances such as PFAS or water-repellent treatments. This includes Patagonia, Columbia, and The North Face. Why do you think this investigation involving Lululemon is generating more buzz? Is it because it touches on the issue of consumer trust?

Lynn Fiorentino: I think the Lululemon investigation is gaining a lot of media attention because its customers have grown to view Lululemon as a lifestyle brand of activewear focused on personal wellbeing and sustainability as opposed to waterproofed materials designed for the outdoors. The Texas Attorney General's investigation focuses on whether Lululemon's clothing contains PFAS "that their health-conscious customers would not expect based on the brand's marketing." The investigation is directed at consumer deception in advertising. Other brands, such as Patagonia, Columbia, and The North Face, that have been caught in the crosshairs of PFAS press in the past, have traditionally marketed themselves as outdoor athletic wear brands centered on durability and water proofing. These are features that may be associated with PFAS. In addition, the Lululemon investigation is generating more media attention due to the activity of social media influencers who regularly promote and wear the brand.

FNW: Do we currently know exactly what health risks the presence of “forever chemicals” may pose?

LF: The short answer is “no.” There’s nothing “exact” about this issue. PFAS or “forever chemicals” is a convenient but misleading collective term for a vast number of chemicals covering a vast range of physical, chemical, and toxicological properties. Only a few PFAS, or classes of PFAS, have been investigated for their toxicological properties. Some PFAS, such as perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), and their closely related compounds were once widely used, but their use has been discontinued over the past few years due to their known adverse health effects. On the other hand, many PFAS polymers (plastics) such as PTFE (Teflon) are thought to be biologically inert and completely non-toxic. For the remaining PFAS, there is little toxicological information, but it remains inadvisable to view PFAS as though they were all toxic.

FNW: And specifically in athleisure wear ?

LF: PFAS have been used in athletic apparel (primarily synthetic fiber such as spandex, polyester, and nylon) to make it water-resistant and to help wick away sweat. It is unclear what specific PFAS are used for this purpose, and their toxicological properties may be uninvestigated and therefore generally unknown, although where PFAS polymers are used, they may be assumed to be non-toxic. For other PFAS, they would first need to be released from the apparel and then absorbed through the skin to enter the body, at which point they may pose some type of health risk- or not. Unfortunately, any potential health risks from the use of such athletic apparel are currently unclear or unknown.

FNW: Several states, including California and New York, have banned clothing containing PFAS, following the lead of certain European countries like France. Other states are expected to follow suit this year. Does this indicate a general acceleration of monitoring measures and requirements across the entire apparel market?

LF: I would agree with that. The legislative and regulatory landscape strongly suggests a general acceleration of monitoring measures and requirements across the entire apparel market. After the Calfirnia and New York bans went into effect in 2025, other states followed suit, including Connecticut (disclosure requirements for outdoor apparel), Illinois (disclosure requirements for PPE sold to firefighters, with a broader apparel ban in 2027), Maine (a ban on all textile products with intentionally added PFAS), Minnesota (PFAS reporting requirements), Vermont (prohibitions on PFAS in multiple product categories, including upholstered furniture), and Washington (reporting requirements for apparel with intentionally added PFAS, with a full ban on apparel effective January 2027). The momentum is clear. The trends also indicate tightening restrictions in the future. For example, California's total organic fluorine threshold drops from 100 ppm to 50 ppm on January 1, 2027, and New York will establish a maximum PFAS threshold by January 2027 regardless of whether the PFAS was intentionally added.

FNW: Is it possible today for a company to hide the use of these chemicals in their production? What risks do they face if they do so?

LF: It is becoming increasingly difficult- and in many jurisdictions illegal- for a company to hide the use of PFAS in textile production. A rapidly expanding maze of bans, disclosure requirements, reporting mandates, labelling obligations, and the availability of analytical testing now exists across multiple US states, the EU, and other jurisdictions, making concealment both legally risky and practically challenging. Concealing the use of these chemicals in textile production could lead to expensive and burdensome class action lawsuits based on false advertising claims. In addition, California Proposition 65 lawsuits have forced brands to reformulate or provide warning labels about the presence of three specific PFAS: PFOA, PFNA, and PFOS.

FNW: What materials or chemical treatments can replace PFAS today? Is the development of PFAS-free collections significant in the United States?

Bina Joshi: There are now several alternatives to PFAS treatments being used in the industry, such as plant-based waxes, water-based finishes, and silicone-based finishes. Manufacturers are increasingly exploring innovative engineering techniques as well, like tightly weaving fabrics, to achieve waterproofing or moisture resistance without depending on PFAS. Many of these alternative treatments don’t quite match PFAS in terms of durability or performance- plant-based waxes, for example, often don’t withstand repeated cleaning cycles as well, and while silicones are among the most widely adopted alternatives, some tests show that their performance is still catching up to PFAS (though continually improving). There are also ongoing discussions about the potential toxicity of certain silicone-based treatments. There is momentum towards PFAS-free collections in the US, with major American brands like Patagonia, Ralph Lauren, and Levi Strauss & Co. already eliminating PFAS from new water-resistant clothing lines.

FNW: Is the implementation of California’s textile EPR program- which requires brands to take responsibility for the treatment and recycling of their clothing- the best tool for compelling fashion companies to recycle sustainably?

Alex Garel-Frantzen: California's SB 707, the Responsible Textile Recovery Act of 2024, is the first statewide EPR program for textiles in the United States, making it a meaningful development in the fashion world. Whether the law accomplishes its goals of furthering sustainability remains to be seen. The program is designed to shift the financial burden of end-of-life textile management from taxpayers to apparel brands by requiring producers to fund collection, repair, reuse, and recycling infrastructure. EPR is one tool in a broader toolkit and works best when combined with parallel developments in textile recycling technology and changes in consumer behavior. A head's up for producers: the deadline to register and join the approved producer responsibility organisation, Landbell USA, is fast-approaching on July 1.

FNW: Does implementing such an EPR program represent a game-changer? And does it truly compel sports and activewear companies to completely overhaul their clothing design and production systems?

AGF: The structure of the EPR program- lower fees for companies that credit producers for design choices and recycling programs that help achieve the law’s goals- may incentivise some businesses to make changes to their designs or systems. But I do not expect the EPR program to lead to an overhauling of companies’ entire production systems overnight.

FNW: Two laws, SB 253 and SB 261, now require California-based companies to disclose their carbon emissions. By focusing primarily on large companies (those generating more than $1 billion), do these measures currently face certain limitations?

AGF: California’s greenhouse gas reporting law (SB 253) and climate-related risk reporting law (SB 261) actually have broad reach. They apply to any company- whether based in California or elsewhere- that do business in California and meet certain annual revenue thresholds: namely, $1 billion for SB 253 and $500 million for SB 261. This of course means that fashion brands not meeting those revenue thresholds fall outside the scope of the disclosure requirements. That said, many brands are already disclosing this type of information anyway due to investor and market interest. But the real challenge for these laws is whether they will remain on the books in the years to come. Both laws are being challenged in court, and SB 261’s enforcement already has been paused by a court.

FNW: Compared to other states, can we say that California is now among the states with the strictest requirements for compliance with eco-friendly production standards?

AGF: California is certainly at the forefront. It is the first and only state with an enacted textile EPR law, its climate disclosure mandates are the most comprehensive in the nation, and it previously enacted PFAS restrictions in apparel. Looking ahead, its proposed Fashion Environmental Accountability Act of 2025 (AB 405) would be the first state law requiring certain fashion sellers to conduct environmental due diligence across their supply chains.

｜消息来源：https://ww.fashionnetwork.com/news/The-lululemon-controversy-what-you-need-to-know-about-pfas-chemicals,1835112.html